Skip to main content
Glama

corply

by io.github.corply-dev

validate_application

Validate the formation application and return structured validationIssues whose kind distinguishes absent inputs from saved-but-invalid values. Promotes the formation to 'ready' when complete and returns the server-authoritative standardConfiguration with the canonical nextStep. Prerequisite: authenticated active organization access plus every prerequisite stated above. Canonicality: invokes the shared backend action; trust the returned actual_tool_output and context_engineering instead of adding a state-recovery call. Idempotency: obey the tool-specific retry key or guarantee; if none is stated, inspect refreshed state before retrying. Confirmation boundary: no additional confirmation is needed for this read, reversible save, explicit fact/evidence record, link preparation, plan refresh, or action pre-authorized by a standing founder-configured policy.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formationIdYes
_corply_contextNoEcho context_engineering.context_session from the prior Corply result.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / _corply_context
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "dependentRequired": {
+    "receipt": [
+      "id"
+    ]
+  },
+  "description": "Echo context_engineering.context_session from the prior Corply result.",
+  "properties": {
+    "id": {
+      "maxLength": 200,
+      "minLength": 16,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "receipt": {
+      "maxLength": 2048,
+      "minLength": 16,
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate it's not read-only, and the description additionally discloses it involves a 'reversible save' and promotes state to 'ready', plus canonicality and retry guidance. This adds value beyond annotations, but the disclosure is partially templated and doesn't fully describe side effects or failure behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The first sentence is concise, but it's followed by three sentences of generic boilerplate about canonicality, idempotency, and confirmation boundaries that appear unrelated to this specific tool. These add noise and dilute the useful content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with only one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key outcomes: validationIssues distinguishing absent vs invalid, promotion to 'ready', and return of canonical nextStep. The retry and canonicality guidance, while generic, still aids correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 50% (one of two params described). The description does not explain formationId beyond its name; it only mentions echoing _corply_context, which the schema already describes. This fails to compensate for the undocumented required parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence clearly states the tool validates the formation application, returns structured validationIssues, promotes to 'ready', and gives canonical nextStep. This is specific and distinct from siblings like save_application or submit_for_formation, though it doesn't name alternatives explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus save_application, submit_for_formation, or other workflow steps. The mention of 'Prerequisite' is vague and the idempotency/confirmation boilerplate is generic, not context-specific.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All corply toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

There is notable overlap among status/read tools (get_company_briefing, get_status, get_org, whoami) and a dense cluster of payment-related tools (request_payment, await_payment, create_payment_project, create_payment_route_draft, etc.). The detailed descriptions help differentiate them, but agents could still misselect when the surface is this large.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names overwhelmingly follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., create_payment_route_draft, record_operating_event, start_bank_onboarding). Minor exceptions like 'whoami', 'recall', and 'remember' are acceptable single-verb commands, so the naming is highly consistent overall.

Tool Count2/5

At 52 tools, the server far exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the breadth of domains (formation, payments, cap table, operating compliance) somewhat justifies the count, it still feels heavy and likely increases selection errors and cognitive load for agents.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the full formation lifecycle (save, validate, generate, sign, submit), payment handling, bank onboarding, cap table management, and operating records/evidence workflows. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update/delete for existing companies, no explicit company dissolution), but the core workflows are well covered.

Resources